Admin please close #2. Also, Slarti (not a Libertarian) opened a poll in the poll lounge which is obviously not a real libertarian thread (it's quite the opposite).

And let's open this one with this: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/career/fl-wage-theft-passes-house-20120229,0,1947806.story" rel="nofollow - I'm not sure what to think of this. Sure, regulation is bad but taking protections away from workers in this state-corporate kingdom seems even worse. Opinions? .

But you libertarians really seem to easily get your panties in a wad. Geeze and liberals are bad about that?

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 12:56

^ We do? I think we have a pretty good sense of humor.The government is probably telling you otherwise.

Gamemako wrote:

5) Crossed state lines to sell, in fact. Was told
to stop, so he tried some absurd plan to get around it. Not nearly so
innocent.

Guilty of what exactly? I think that's the whole issue. He's guilty of selling something. Oh Jesus. Throw the chains on him.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 13:11

Liberty takes a licking and it keeps on ticking.

-------------

Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 13:58

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Guilty of what exactly? I think that's the whole issue. He's guilty of selling something. Oh Jesus. Throw the chains on him.

Guilty of crossing state lines to sell an unsafe product where it's illegal?

I know you think highly-enriched uranium should be sold in grocery stores, and we'll never agree on that, but I just want to make it clear that this isn't a perfectly innocent local farmer sharing his spoils with well-informed neighbors.

-------------Hail Eris!

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 14:02

God damn, it was my goal to start the third one for great irony. Although I was expecting it to be closed like the SR...shoulda known you guys would self regulate it and not let the man take control

Even had a name: Libertarian Thread 3: You're like a Marxist society, no class.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 14:19

The T usurped my joke thread and...

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 14:25

Slartibartfast wrote:

The T usurped my joke thread and...

Yeah for reals, gotta wait another year and 200+ pages now.

USURPER! Besides, I like having choice. Rival libertarian thread. Maybe 2 or 3. Let the masses of PA decide which is best.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 15:21

I do oppose this thread on the grounds that I want to see how long #2 could go. Not sure what the longest thread in the site's history is but I was hoping that if Libertarian #2 wasn't that it would, one day, be.

Also Gamemako, your comment on selling uranium in grocery stores is ridiculous. It is an asinine assumption that the only thing preventing this from happening is government regulation. I saw Anthony Bourdain eat some cheese made with raw milk, on tv, a few weeks back. Better get him. He might have made a conscience decision to intake something that could, potentially maybe, harm his health a bit!

Guilty of what exactly? I think that's the whole issue. He's guilty of selling something. Oh Jesus. Throw the chains on him.

Guilty of crossing state lines to sell an unsafe product where it's illegal?

I know you think highly-enriched uranium should be sold in grocery stores, and we'll never agree on that, but I just want to make it clear that this isn't a perfectly innocent local farmer sharing his spoils with well-informed neighbors.

So he did something you view as wrong because he sold something to someone who wanted to consume it? Further, the crime was not selling it, but selling it because he crossed some arbitrary line drawn by government on a map? And yes unsafe like most of the things in the world it could potentially cause harm.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

He logged in yesterday, so unless someone has whacked him and taken over his account, he's okay.

I miss him though.

-------------

http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 18:15

MoM:

1) I opened The Third because Slarti opened a fake one...

2) Are you opposing free initiative in favor of top-down control?

3) Santorum outlasted Cain. That is your answer for the question about Llama.

To everybody: thanks for ignoring my question in the first post.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 18:19

And yes I still can't believe there is such a thing as a cheesesteak...

-------------

Posted By: Gamemako
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 18:37

manofmystery wrote:

Also Gamemako, your comment on selling uranium in grocery stores is ridiculous.

The point is that you believe things should be available regardless of potential harm (your friendly neighborhood nuke store!), or you draw a line involving public good. I'm not arguing whether or not the sale of raw milk should be legal or whether it should be permitted to cross state lines. Whether you agree with the current placement of the line is moot; he clearly and deliberately crossed it. In fact, if these customers were so nearby, they could have collected the raw milk themselves in the state and the entire business would have been perfectly legal.

manofmystery wrote:

It is an asinine assumption that the only thing preventing this from happening is government regulation. I saw Anthony Bourdain eat some cheese made with raw milk, on tv, a few weeks back. Better get him. He might have made a conscience decision to intake something that could, potentially maybe, harm his health a bit!

Consumption of raw milk is not illegal. You're arguing against a law that doesn't exist.

//EDIT:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Further, the crime was not selling it, but
selling it because he crossed some arbitrary line drawn by government on
a map?

All law is arbitrary. Only pure anarchy has no borders.

//EDIT: Or pure, universal statism. All is the dominion of the One World Order!

-------------Hail Eris!

Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 23:06

^ You seperated my response incorrectly. I was stating that it is asinine to believe that the only thing preventing uranium from being sold in grocery stores in government action. Was pointing out that it was a silly analogy on your part.

The T wrote:

MoM:

1) I opened The Third because Slarti opened a fake one...

It's slarti, we really need to start ignoring him and letting his posts/threads die naturally.

2) Are you opposing free initiative in favor of top-down control?

You know, you're the one that asked the admins to close the other thread.

3) Santorum outlasted Cain. That is your answer for the question about Llama.

He shouldn't have gone into hiding over that. He got duped by a fake candidate on a book tour, we can forgive him for that.

Longest thread I can personally recount was one of the Shred Rooms, for a while we got it into the 500 page range, I wanna say like 520. Never would've made it to that point

Anywho, it's OK Teo...you got a little sensitive and jumped the gun, I can forgive it but only because I can not legally do drugs to ease the pain. Maaan

Still reading that Rothbard book (I was expecting it to be an article). Compelling argument thus far.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 03 2012 at 23:50

Did someone say cheesesteak? Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile.

On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it. Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this. Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich. 2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available. Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it.

Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 11:23

Gamemako wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Further, the crime was not selling it, but
selling it because he crossed some arbitrary line drawn by government on
a map?

All law is arbitrary. Only pure anarchy has no borders.

//EDIT: Or pure, universal statism. All is the dominion of the One World Order!

I don't think laws against murder or arson or rape are arbitrary. There's actually a person being harmed in those cases. I can actually point to a crime being committed. You can't do that here. Also, I have this crazy idea that laws must be isotropic to be valid.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 11:28

Atavachron wrote:

Did someone say cheesesteak? Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile.

On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it. Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this. Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich. 2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available. Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it.

Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

I've never had it and probably never will, but it's not sufficient for us simply to agree that a practice should not make place to make the argument for its outlaw. I just don't see a reasonable basis for the law.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 15:19

I only want to take the opportunity to thank you all for still ignoring my first-post question... .

-------------

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 15:21

The T wrote:

I only want to take the opportunity to thank you all for still ignoring my first-post question... .

What first-post question?

-------------Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 15:41

Gamemako wrote:

manofmystery wrote:

Also Gamemako, your comment on selling uranium in grocery stores is ridiculous.

The point is that you believe things should be available regardless of potential harm (your friendly neighborhood nuke store!), or you draw a line involving public good. I'm not arguing whether or not the sale of raw milk should be legal or whether it should be permitted to cross state lines. Whether you agree with the current placement of the line is moot; he clearly and deliberately crossed it. In fact, if these customers were so nearby, they could have collected the raw milk themselves in the state and the entire business would have been perfectly legal.

manofmystery wrote:

It is an asinine assumption that the only thing preventing this from happening is government regulation. I saw Anthony Bourdain eat some cheese made with raw milk, on tv, a few weeks back. Better get him. He might have made a conscience decision to intake something that could, potentially maybe, harm his health a bit!

Consumption of raw milk is not illegal. You're arguing against a law that doesn't exist.

//EDIT:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Further, the crime was not selling it, but
selling it because he crossed some arbitrary line drawn by government on
a map?

All law is arbitrary. Only pure anarchy has no borders.

//EDIT: Or pure, universal statism. All is the dominion of the One World Order!

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/rnr/2884436037.html

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 20:12

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

Did someone say cheesesteak? Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile.

On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it. Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this. Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich. 2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available. Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it.

Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

I've never had it and probably never will, but it's not sufficient for us simply to agree that a practice should not make place to make the argument for its outlaw. I just don't see a reasonable basis for the law.

Cruel or unusual practices toward an animal (even a non-mammal) particularly for a food product that is not a staple or in high demand in American culture, could be considered unethical. I believe that it is. There's not much more to it than that.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 22:54

^ It's certainly no less unethical than the mass killings that happen in modern day animal meat processing. And if something like chicken breat is more in-demand in America, does that mean the cruelty that goes on it more acceptable even though it is more prevalent by orders of magnitude? Seems a bit backwards to me. The modern way of meat processing is largely unnecessary, for survival at least. Humans do not need nearly as much meat as current Americans eat to lively healthily, and even less to flourish. It's less about necessity and more about pleasure now.

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize.

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer-br/shaffer-br12.1.html" rel="nofollow - Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 04 2012 at 23:37

The T wrote:

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize.

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer-br/shaffer-br12.1.html" rel="nofollow - Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

"I wrote the piece in the form of a letter
to my pro-Obama friends and said that by the end of his term, Obama’s
administration would not look very different from that of George
W. Bush. I told them that if I was wrong about my predictions, I
would re-think all of my beliefs about our political system and
about politics generally, and if I turned out to be right, I asked
them to do the same."

....god damn

"many of them are disappointed in what Obama has done so
far, and that many are feeling hopeless about the upcoming election,
resigned to their belief that there is "no better alternative."
Incredibly, some of them plan to vote for Obama again."

Well, this is also accurate, except instead of Obama again I am turning to Ron Paul (realizing he does fit my views surprisingly and some of his opinions make more sense than I thought).

Let's see what his alternative is to those Obama let downers...

"Ron Paul"

Ugh, he's got me on this one to the tee. I no longer feel like a unique and special flower

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 00:40

stonebeard wrote:

^ It's certainly no less unethical than the mass killings that happen in modern day animal meat processing. And if something like chicken breat is more in-demand in America, does that mean the cruelty that goes on it more acceptable even though it is more prevalent by orders of magnitude? Seems a bit backwards to me. The modern way of meat processing is largely unnecessary, for survival at least. Humans do not need nearly as much meat as current Americans eat to lively healthily, and even less to flourish. It's less about necessity and more about pleasure now.

You're saying a couple of things-- firstly, the existence of a larger more standardized cruelty does not mean preventing a small cruelty is backwards. Further, California passing such a law may contribute to a larger conversation about how animals-for-consumption are treated. Or maybe not, but one does what they can in their little corner of the world. Second you raise the issue of whether we need to be eating such large amounts of meat in the first place. As a meat-eater I am of course biased on this to a degree, but I would point to a continuing need for affordable protein sources for a struggling population. I'm not going to tell someone able to get a pound of ground beef for a third the price of other cuts, who can feed themselves or family because their market offered chicken parts at three bucks a pound - however questionable and non-range fed - that they can't or shouldn't do that. Maybe someday we'll have a more agrarian, humane and 'sustainable' system but until then people need affordable meat protein (not just beans or cheese or even protein supplements though those are all very good too).

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 01:12

The T wrote:

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and
since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty
against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to
proselytize.

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer-br/shaffer-br12.1.html" rel="nofollow - Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

Hmm, the article reads a bit like someone needing some attention about how right they were (as in "See?! Everything isn't all better. Obama has made mistakes, and he is willing to take military action. I was right, people!"). And nearly half the things on the list are precluded by "Well, this hasn't happened yet, but.." or "Okay I admit this is speculation, but.."

It's pretty weak, and we've heard it. The reason Obama will likely be
reelected is mostly because if economic news continues to swing upward,
there's no real reason roughly the same percentage of voter will not
prefer him to the other candidate(s).

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 07:46

Atavachron wrote:

]Cruel or unusual practices toward an animal (even a non-mammal) particularly for a food product that is not a staple or in high demand in American culture, could be considered unethical. I believe that it is. There's not much more to it than that.

I don't think things like demand for a meat should affect the morality of an action nor the legality. Unless, I'm misunderstanding, neither of us really wants to get into a prolonged discussion about animal rights. I'll just sum my position by saying that I don't give them any.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 07:50

The T wrote:

Admin please close #2. Also, Slarti (not a Libertarian) opened a poll in the poll lounge which is obviously not a real libertarian thread (it's quite the opposite).

And let's open this one with this: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/career/fl-wage-theft-passes-house-20120229,0,1947806.story" rel="nofollow - I'm not sure what to think of this. Sure, regulation is bad but taking protections away from workers in this state-corporate kingdom seems even worse. Opinions? .

I don't like it. Something smells bad about the bill. Working off the clock does not necessarily entitle you to monetary payment. This seems like a bill the city would use to prosecute companies on the behalf of workers which would only leave to adverse results.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 10:40

Atavachron wrote:

The T wrote:

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and
since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty
against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to
proselytize.

http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer-br/shaffer-br12.1.html" rel="nofollow - Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

Hmm, the article reads a bit like someone needing some attention about how right they were (as in "See?! Everything isn't all better. Obama has made mistakes, and he is willing to take military action. I was right, people!"). And nearly half the things on the list are precluded by "Well, this hasn't happened yet, but.." or "Okay I admit this is speculation, but.."

It's pretty weak, and we've heard it. The reason Obama will likely be
reelected is mostly because if economic news continues to swing upward,
there's no real reason roughly the same percentage of voter will not
prefer him to the other candidate(s).

I think the reason Obama will be reelected is because almost all the GOP candidates are a joke. There's no economic upward swing.

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 05 2012 at 16:36

From a non analyst, economical expert "street view" things seem to be slowly getting better. Not gunna throw numbers and sh*t, I'm talking about what I observe.

My mother and I have been applying for jobs and generally seem to be getting more interviews, the financial situation for us is slightly better, others we know have been having success in getting jobs, saving up. People around just say "ya know things have been a better for us" etc. Basically little things.

Emphasis of course on slowly improving, and little things...But yeah this is no surprise, in 09 I said Obama was in the cat bird seat. That the economy will improve, he will be credited for "fixing" it, and the increase in craziness from the GOP would help even more so. In fact I thought it was a 110% guarantee. The economy has sludged way more than I thought, and the explosion in anti government sentiment surprised me (even if most Americans are jumping on a bandwagon and repeating whatever (insert personality) says mindlessly.

But yeah Obama will win against any of these jokes, and even if Paul gets the nomination there's plenty of fire to be used against him. I see the Dems really using the "racist" thing against him and his "soft views" on terrorism. Quotes for emphasis on the BS of it so please don't go crazy about how those are lies

Also his general views would be distorted as is the case with anyone. I'm sure some scary black and white commercial will be aired of ron Paul holding a molotov cocktail, looking over his shoulder, and lobs it on a school. The deep voice comes in then, "Do you want this to happen to our country in these sensitive times? Vote Obama November 6"

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

^ I think there are far better and more subtle ways to assassinate at home; certainly not with a drone, an old fashioned "traffic accident" or "heart attack" is probably still preferred

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 09:21

One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich, has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 09:52

The T wrote:

One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich, has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

God damn, that's a shame. Always liked him. Back in my full out liberal days he was like mah man in Congress, even now he represents what I still like deep down (but have no hope of)

And yeah, like or not he stuck to his ideals, one of the few true members of Congress along with Paul. Dedicated to anti war as you said.

First Russ Feingold (only real political hero I had) now him there were few people I truly like in politics, and all are being removed! I doubt his anti war, alone, had much to do with it. Says his district got re drawn, and I'm guessing he was too progressive for the new district.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 11:10

The T wrote:

One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich,
has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being
against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

She gets to face Joe the not really a plumber. Dennis was the only guy in congress who had actually had experience being homeless.

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 11:15

The T wrote:

One of the few democrats opposed to war, Dennis Kucinich, has lost his seat in recent primaries. It's as if in the US being against war is the worst possible idea for any candidate.

Which is strange because polling would indicate otherwise. It's not the people don't like the candidates, it's that the parties themselves do not like the anti-war candidates. They make sure these people don't get nominations.

Remember that Republican state lawmakers redistricted the state prior to the primary which deliberately led to Kucinich's opposition having a more favorable districting.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 11:48

Yeah I figured it was a redistricted rail job. Apparently that's another perk of getting the lead of a state, redraw it to favor yourself!In the case of Texas, no need to even wait till decades end

Kucinich was the man. I'll miss that rat faced crazy.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Read something about how some of the Paul campaign are let down and confused about the massive throngs of support they have that don't seem to be quite translating to votes. The youth, us 25 and unders (a large bastion of Paul support) are famous for leaving people on the altar.

We all remember Paul's massive online support in 08 that ended up with bupkis.

Some will say it's media smearings, GOP oppression, and other reasons...all of which are valid and have proven to be true, but think the youth of America yet again are running out on wedding day?

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 07:39

I saw some reasonably suspicious evidence of vote manipulation. I wouldn't rule that out. Probably some of what you mentioned and just the illusion that strong internet support can create in people that use the internet.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 07:52

No doubt about that, and seems like it is a bit of all 3 indeed.

Is a shame, more I thought about more I thought there was a very strong possibility he could've beaten Obama, surely Romney won't and the others even less chance. Ah well. Guess we'll see if something crazy happens with the primaries.

I still would prefer Bama to Romney and co. so that's fine by me but barring quite a change I'll still be writing in Paul in November.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 08:10

Paul's challenge will always be (or always was I guess is more accurate) overcoming the Republican primary.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 09 2012 at 08:14

That's for sure.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:11

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/secret-history-of-wwii.html" rel="nofollow - I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe

-------------

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:28

The T wrote:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/secret-history-of-wwii.html" rel="nofollow - I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe

Yes we were such idiots. We should have allowed Hitler to get on with whatever he wanted to do. Someone remind me, what was it he was up to?

-------------Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:42

That is one time I will disagree, and ya know I am pretty non interventionist but WWII is like the exception.

And sounds a little "hindsight is 20/20" in that article/what Hoover said.

Issues:The war cost Britain its empire. First, good! That's being spoken of as a bad thing? Second, maybe Churchill knew. It was Hitler who said the British Empire would not survive the war. Being the smart man he was, I'll say he had a hunch. Regardless, he didn't care. He opposed Hitler well before anyone and wanted to stop him. OMG maybe...maybe he was even willing to take the hit of the aged British Empire to do it

Handed half of Europe to Soviet Communism. Uh, we didn't fight on the Eastern Front. That was all the USSR. Before we opened the Western Front, 90% of German troops were on the East. Sooo if the US doesn't get involved, I dont see how the outcome is different. If anything MORE of Europe would be overrun by communism in my mind.

More erosion of Freedom, OK this is true.

There was no real threat to the US, again true. He even says "it was known at the time" soo he's admitting hindsight is 20/20? Just a weak argument. So the US and England don't get involved..what would've happen? After an even more amazingly brutal hellish war either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany overrun Europe? Maybe they just wipe each other out? I'll admit, I'm just not that brutal. IDK, a lot of these articles are quite good but I gotta fight this one. Just a little too much for my blood and I don't find the arguments very strong.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 08:52

And if the article is solely making an analysis in hindsight, I can do the same:

The holocaust continued on even as Germany was being eaten away at all sides, so with only one front (since there'd be no one else involved) it would've been even more horrifying. There'd have been more time to carry it on. I may be non interventionist but if you are willing to say "yeah I would accept that result" just for not being involved...then wow.

I'm not so sure "those b*****ds would've wiped each other out" is too solid either. One of them would've won. Maybe it would've been the Soviet Union and they'd have greater influence (hell in hindsight we can say anything, maybe Stalin would've gone 1812 on their asses and push all the way to France) OR more likely without any distractions...Germany would've won.

That's just what we would've loved.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 09:31

^The only good reason for the US to intervene was stopping the Holocaust. But the US didn't enter WWII to stop the Holocaust, and they didn't really do it. The most horrendous part of the Holocaust actually took place once the US was in the war, once the Nazis started to realize the war was lost (around, after Stalingrad). If the US had wanted to stop the Holocaust they could have started by bombing railway lines that lead to Auschwitz, Treblinka and the rest, or by bombing te camps themselves (though this would have cause jewish casualties anyway). The UsSR - Nazi war would have eventually sided with the soviets, for sheer number and industrial strength. The whole thing was wrong from the beginning. Hitler invaded the west because he didn't want a two-front war (which proved fatal). Sometimes I think that, misguided or with political interests or whatever, Chamberlain's appeasement wasn't so horrendous. The Hitler-Stalin showdown was bound to come.

Anyway, WWII is the only US war of the 20th century that kind of resembles a just war. Kind of.

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 09:56

Ahhhhh I was making the point the article was just looking back and saying "this and that" so I did the same. You see it's not really that good a strategy.

Sorry for the explosion but I find it crazy Especially since, as you say, it could've easily ended with the Soviets winning sooo yeah, THAT is what we would've liked??Sorry but the idea of not being involved with WW2 I find utter lunacy and how intensely that article talks of it is outright scary to me.

The whole thing was wrong. Necessary, even justified, does not make war "right". It's a terrible thing, and I wish people had that mindset. It's always wrong, even if it's needed, and thus should be used as an absolute last case. Which I think WWII is pretty fitting of. Especially since:

I don't think appeasement was horrendous either. Again people look at it later and say "OMG LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID" but he was trying to keep peace. He didn't want a war, and did what he could to try and prevent that. Since we don't have future vision, he could've had no idea what Hitler was like. He thought, like a sane person, if you gave Hitler what he wanted, he'd be content. I also read that he did it to try and keep the more moderate forces in the Nazi Cabinet happy, if he took too hard line a stance maybe the more extreme forces would've been empowered.

As you said it was inevitable. Hitler was truly an insane human being, in ways we can't fully know. Nothing on Earth could satisfy him short of his goals, and he loved war. Had a hard on for it. Really was sad times.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 11:05

akamaisondufromage wrote:

The T wrote:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/secret-history-of-wwii.html" rel="nofollow - I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe

Yes we were such idiots. We should have allowed Hitler to get on with whatever he wanted to do. Someone remind me, what was it he was up to?

Feminazis?

-------------

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 11:22

Slartibartfast wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

The T wrote:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/secret-history-of-wwii.html" rel="nofollow - I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe

Yes we were such idiots. We should have allowed Hitler to get on with whatever he wanted to do. Someone remind me, what was it he was up to?

Feminazis?

?

I don't think so?

I wonder how history would have looked upon the USA is they had sat and set anexample watched from the sidelines.

-------------Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 18:16

Yeah, I'd imagine quite poorly but then again the US also is in the unique position of always being screwed in that regard. "You leave us all the f**k alone, stay out of our business and quit policing the world" until something bad happens then the US is expected to help and would probably be blasted if they chose not to get involved

Of course I agree with that first part myself but different time though, different situation. It's weird to say but that was one time war was needed.Especially since for 10 years I've been arguing against wars in Iraq, (later) Afghanistan, and calling for a large scale back in our defense budget, world presence, and change in foreign policy.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 18:31

The discussion is a little pointless considering that Hitler did the brilliant move of declaring war on the US himself thus making life easier for Roosevelt

-------------

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 18:43

Then don't post drivel

-------------Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 18:45

Yeah but most if not all internet debate is pointless for one reason or anotherThat's why it's hear! I don't talk like this IRL and it's my only way to let it out

Besides how many different ways can you say the government sucks?

Assuming Obama gets a second term: Wonder if there's any chance he'll ya know...do something, like legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, since he won't have to fear re election.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 19:39

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Then don't post drivel

I will post whatever the I want that is within the guidelines of this website and don't need your approval. Not that your cliche one-liners have contributed anything to the discussion anyway.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 19:41

JJLehto wrote:

Yeah but most if not all internet debate is pointless for one reason or anotherThat's why it's hear! I don't talk like this IRL and it's my only way to let it out Besides how many different ways can you say the government sucks? Assuming Obama gets a second term: Wonder if there's any chance he'll ya know...do something, like legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, since he won't have to fear re election.

Lose all hope good Brian. He will not get more radical towards those social issues at all. Remember, it's jot as if the politics game stops with him. Once he's gone, he still has to think about his party and playing down the center is the best way to get elected (not that the sorry GOP is any threat lately anyway).

-------------

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 21:41

The T wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

Yeah but most if not all internet debate is pointless for one reason or anotherThat's why it's hear! I don't talk like this IRL and it's my only way to let it out Besides how many different ways can you say the government sucks? Assuming Obama gets a second term: Wonder if there's any chance he'll ya know...do something, like legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, since he won't have to fear re election.

Lose all hope good Brian. He will not get more radical towards those social issues at all. Remember, it's jot as if the politics game stops with him. Once he's gone, he still has to think about his party and playing down the center is the best way to get elected (not that the sorry GOP is any threat lately anyway).

The analysis points out that Dems are already united behind their guy, while R's are still fighting, so theoretically the Rs will improve a bit on these numbers. When Rs stop beating the sh*t out of each other, they are going to start engaging Obummer, and it will be a contest. The media narrative that this thing is over already is BS.

I wonder how history would have looked upon the USA is they had sat and set anexample watched from the sidelines.

Probably not so bad, given the white washing that western media would do anyway. Few people in America know there is compelling evidence that Roosevelt knew of the attack of Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to rally support for intervening in Europe and the Pacific.

Anyway, think WW2 had to be fought. The Japanese and the Germans were aggressive forces with cold, horrible ideologies, and they were committing atrocities left and right. Even if they overextended and would have at some point been forced to scale back, having powerful nations ignore sovereignty of multiple countries and take back land and people should not be allowed, whenever possible. Shame the nature of war back then was still basically throwing guys in front of machines guns. Less tactical and more deadly.

It's amusing. Many of us on the left said that he wasn't going to be the liberal savior he was being spun as.

Yet he retains your support?

It's very weak support. He isn't the demon that many conservatives have portrayed him as either.

-------------

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 08:33

stonebeard wrote:

akamaisondufromage wrote:

I wonder how history would have looked upon the USA is they had sat and set anexample watched from the sidelines.

Probably not so bad, given the white washing that western media would do anyway. Few people in America know there is compelling evidence that Roosevelt knew of the attack of Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to rally support for intervening in Europe and the Pacific.

Anyway, think WW2 had to be fought. The Japanese and the Germans were aggressive forces with cold, horrible ideologies, and they were committing atrocities left and right. Even if they overextended and would have at some point been forced to scale back, having powerful nations ignore sovereignty of multiple countries and take back land and people should not be allowed, whenever possible. Shame the nature of war back then was still basically throwing guys in front of machines guns. Less tactical and more deadly.

Can you provide a source for this? It seems well documented that the US military had been able to crack some Japanese diplomatic code and received similar from British intelligence warning that an attack was imminent. However, this theory of a complicit FDR seems to stem entirely from a statement made by Chief of Staff General George Marshall: the United States desires that Japan commits the first overt act.The US certainly knew that Japan was about to declare war but there is no evidence to suggest that they knew the target location for any attack. Given the sheer size of the Pacific Ocean, likely targets were many e.g. the Phillipines, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, Kra Peninsula, Borneo etcI also believe that if the Pearl Harbour attack had never happened, the US would still have declared war on Japan: all the indicators were there to suggest an American public growing increasingly concerned by an ever increasingly powerful adversary.

I also believe that if the Pearl Harbour attack had never happened, the US would still have declared war on Japan: all the indicators were there to suggest an American public growing increasingly concerned by an ever increasingly powerful adversary.

It was inevitable by all I've read and the Japanese didn't intend for it to be a sneak attack without a declaration of war (but they were intent on doing it). That was apparently a diplomatic communication snafu. It's sad because many among us that became adversaries were inclined to being friends.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 09:02

^The US apparently did know there would be an attack and was waiting for it to happen but didn't get the location right. The Japanese didn't, either. Most historians agree Pearl Harbor didn't accomplish anything for the Japanese Empire since most of the fleet they destroyed was old and none of the real important ships were touched. Also, they didn't really destroy infrastructure like runways to the degree that would've served them better. The lifes lost aside, Pear Harbor was only a minimal problem to the US but quite the perfect, waited-for excuse.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 09:04

By the way, today in the newspaper there was this letter where the writer said that we should move to a popular vote system instead of the electoral college, but what was great was the argument: that would have given as Gore, and "no wars would have existed and no wall street crisis would've occurred". Yeah right...

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 09:10

It really was all inevitable.

Especially with Hitler being different from most other leaders, he was the epitome of an ideologue. Fueled largely on his racial beliefs, some on paranoia and power craze. Nothing ever satisfied him, even when he got what wanted.

Truly insane human being, (or possessed by Satan whichever you wanna believe) and compiled a cabinet of lackeys, power driven kiss ups and other extreme idealists. When you really think about it, more disturbing it all was.

Sooooo it looks like we can add Kansas to the list of states that hate America Wonder if Paul will at least win one state? Maybe a 3 way where he can eek out a victory. He seems pretty popular here in NJ (from like the 20 people I know who like him!)

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 09:23

The T wrote:

^The US apparently did know there would be an attack and was waiting for it to happen but didn't get the location right. The Japanese didn't, either. Most historians agree Pearl Harbor didn't accomplish anything for the Japanese Empire since most of the fleet they destroyed was old and none of the real important ships were touched. Also, they didn't really destroy infrastructure like runways to the degree that would've served them better. The lifes lost aside, Pear Harbor was only a minimal problem to the US but quite the perfect, waited-for excuse.

We weren't really prepared but when we ramped it up, it really changed things.

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 11:36

Damn I missed an interesting discussion :(

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 11:56

You can still jump in. Let's start by bashing Einstein

-------------

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 12:10

I don't know what the hell is up with these kids today with their clothes and their hair....

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 12:13

But I love Einstein kinda. Except for that whole writing FDR to begin the Manhattan project thing.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 12:56

Yes. I understand him being pissed off about the Nazis driving him out of Germany but from there to "let's create a weapon that can obliterate everybody in the world" it's a little too big of a jump...

-------------

Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 13:14

At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.

-------------"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 13:53

True enough.

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 17:16

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

But I love Einstein kinda. Except for that whole writing FDR to begin the Manhattan project thing.

Must be quite a conflict. And IDK, interesting discussion? Now that Teo has converted and I only post random w**kery, how interesting was everyone agreeing "the government sucks" really?

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 17:52

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.

Tell that to the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

-------------

Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 18:09

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.

Then we recruited some Nazis

-------------

Zizou 1988-2006

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 18:36

Slartibartfast wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.

Tell that to the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Bombs dropped by a democrat!

-------------

Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 19:01

I can't help but be soft on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I likely wouldn't be here today, if they hadn't been dropped, as my grandfather would have been sent to storm the Japanese mainland. I think we all know how that would have gone.

Yeah, another case of "hindsight is 20/20" everyone is so smart after the fact!The atomic bombs were horrific, and the aftermath maybe worse...but the alternative was not very pretty either.Hate to be so cynical too, but in terms of # of lives lost/overall damage I find it tough to believe the invasion of mainland Japan would've been less than the bombs.

Either way a pretty sh*tty choice and outcome.

No personal connection either, my grandfather was just a mechanic in the war.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 19:21

manofmystery wrote:

I can't help but be soft on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I likely wouldn't be here today, if they hadn't been dropped, as my grandfather would have been sent to storm the Japanese mainland. I think we all know how that would have gone.

My dad was born in '42 but my grandfather was in the service and overseas in the pacific after VJ.

-------------

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 19:36

I find WWII an endlessly fascinating topic but I thought this thread was all about the savior

He's stuck to the "we're actually winning" and "forget the numbers we'll have the delegates in the end" tickets and I'll admit, the whole f**kin thing confuses me, so I'll wait and see. Never thought I'd utter these words in my life but sent out the form to register republican ASAP after a primary vote is cast I'll be going to Independent though

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 20:04

Brian

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 20:04

It's the Oppenheimer Syndrome; if you can do it, you must do it. As for the Einsteinian/American thinking around the A-Bomb, I imagine most people, conservative or progressive, were fairly convinced that Nazi Germany with or without Hitler would (and as we've now seen from previously suppressed documentation, technically capable of) quite surely capture the World. Remember the context and the era-- nuclear weapons weren't considered much more than a very, very big explosive, and not the unthinkable monstrosity they became.

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 20:18

Partially necessity, if you get going on WWII I will not stop myself even if I want to.

As for the primaries, what boggled so many people was why I decided to do it. Seemed simple to me:It's safe to say Obama is winning the Dem nomination...so why not go to GOP where there's an actual primary going on? Can still vote for whoever in the election. Also, since I kind of like Paul and loathe every other GOPer might as well put my vote there. Thank goodness no one gives a sh*t about NJ and our primary is so late...don't even need to be registered till late May!

I will never be a Republican though, and though it's just a name I'm sick of officially being a Democrat so Independent it will be. It's not a big deal to switch if I ever choose to temporarily. But I guess I've betrayed my fellow liberals and trying to explain any of that usually leads to epic lolstorms, so I just say I want those sweet drugs Paul will make legal. Oh and that only one candidate in the field wants actual change, and his name don't rhyme with Iraq.

-------------"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."